From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B832E71D53 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:29:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qmFQA-000813-2r; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:28:51 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qmFQ8-00080f-Q9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:28:48 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qmFQ1-0003q8-NS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:28:48 -0400 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10FBA1F390; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:28:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1696001320; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vu8xMY5179DItGcuIw7R6N6mU8NPtFQ9cywxfXddoYQ=; b=bxTBaG6Rtc73efZZLyn6kxkAbK0zQ60jCbOID6USYIOn+t8O5l2Iixqfx5ysettymrjtkZ gBiXhtlaGysLTFsPSM+AuoJ2tFLopPvOO4RRWiiocgD0WuRJAVU+BFNotq2gPo9BUFZfmh VKI0YBJt0EfSF208GOjRVlqbPbyt7Sk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1696001320; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vu8xMY5179DItGcuIw7R6N6mU8NPtFQ9cywxfXddoYQ=; b=elZeKwQ0oIl9rx2oE/6LHn8BYyfkxrIZd0BQQFw+M5gDG5WZFd4ymsflpzIYFjMinW1UWQ tL0j4ZlUGLH756Dg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EF0713434; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:28:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id VPLCFiftFmUMOQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:28:39 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: quintela@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com, leobras@redhat.com, lizhijian@fujitsu.com, eblake@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 29/53] migration/rdma: Check negative error values the same way everywhere In-Reply-To: <20230928132019.2544702-30-armbru@redhat.com> References: <20230928132019.2544702-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20230928132019.2544702-30-armbru@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:28:37 -0300 Message-ID: <87sf6xyp5m.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2001:67c:2178:6::1d; envelope-from=farosas@suse.de; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Markus Armbruster writes: > When a function returns 0 on success, negative value on error, > checking for non-zero suffices, but checking for negative is clearer. > So do that. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster Reviewed-by: Fabiano Rosas